4.4 Article

Evaluation of radiomic texture feature error due to MRI acquisition and reconstruction: A simulation study utilizing ground truth

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.05.017

Keywords

Radiomics; Texture; MRI; Repeatability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to examine the dependence of image texture features on MR acquisition parameters and reconstruction using a digital MR imaging phantom. MR signal was simulated in a parallel imaging radiofrequency coil setting as well as a single element volume coil setting, with varying levels of acquisition noise, three acceleration factors, and four image reconstruction algorithms. Twenty-six texture features were measured on the simulated images, ground truth images, and clinical brain images. Subtle algorithm-dependent errors were observed on reconstructed phantom images, even in the absence of added noise. Sources of image error include Gibbs ringing at image edge gradients (tissue interfaces) and well-known artifacts due to high acceleration; two of the iterative reconstruction algorithms studied were able to mitigate these image errors. The difference of the texture features from ground truth, and their variance over reconstruction algorithm and parallel imaging acceleration factor, were compared to the clinical effect size, i.e., the feature difference between high- and low-grade tumors on Tl- and T2-weighted brain MR images of twenty glioma patients. The measured feature error (difference from ground truth) was small for some features, but substantial for others. The feature variance due to reconstruction algorithm and acceleration factor were generally smaller than the clinical effect size. Certain texture features may be preserved by MR imaging, but adequate precautions need to be taken regarding their validity and reliability. We present a general simulation framework for assessing the robustness and accuracy of radiomic textural features under various MR acquisition/reconstruction scenarios.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available